Case Report
1
2
3
4
5
6
Case Number
Advertiser
Product
Type of Advertisement / media
Date of Determination
DETERMINATION
0148/10
VicRoads
Community Awareness
Internet
14/04/2010
Dismissed
ISSUES RAISED
2.1 - Discrimination or Vilification Other
2.5 - Language
Use appropriate language
2.3 - Sex/sexuality/nudity
Treat with sensitivity to relevant audience
DESCRIPTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT
A series of viral clips aimed at influencing the behaviour of young Victorian drivers, which
depict a number of situations that are intended to be seen as undesirable. These situations
occur when people use their mobile phone while driving. The situations depicted are all
accompanied by the text 'Everytime you use your mobile phone in your car'.
There are then the following images:
• an emo is born - girl holding up finger, followed by 'Emo may or may not be born.'
• gingas get fresh – red headed couple in bed - 'Using your mobile phone while driving may
or may not result in gingas getting fresh'
• a redhead gets its wings – feathered wings appear on a man’s back - followed by 'red head
may or may not get wings.'
• a man talking about an accident where he has been impaled by a 'No standing' sign and
depicts him going about his life with the pole through his middle.
Voiceover in all advertisements “Don’t be a dickhead, don’t use your phone".
THE COMPLAINT
A sample of comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included
the following:
Delivering road safety messages through derogatory name calling and at the expense of
minorities in our society is abhorrent and appalling.
1. It promotes bullying of people based on appearance. It uses offensive language to meet its
objective. It is a message from the Victorian Government to the youth in community that
promotes the active use of offensive language and anti-social behaviour and vilification of
minority groups in the community.
This statement is offensive rude and not even slightly true. What would be the problem if two
blonde people had sex? What makes it ok to attack red heads just because there is less of us?
After being bullied all through school having my hair pulled and cut by kids and teens to
getting a part time job at a pub to pay my way through uni where I suffered even more abuse
from drunk adults who wanted to see if my pubic hairs matched my head hairs I think I have
suffered enough for my colouring. I dont think my own government should contribute to the
belittling of a minority.
I write to express my concern at a series of advertisements that the Vic Roads agency has
plans to run. These ads in my view vilify a minority group. In particular the advertisement
which takes aim at a racial subgroup who are characterised by red hair and fair skin. This
advertisement is nothing short of racial vilification and portrays people with these racial
attributes as being unfortunate to be avoided and undesirable in society. The less than subtle
crude and vilifying inference being that it is not desirable to be one or allow them to breed.
It is bigotted upsetting and completely unacceptable to label people with red hair 'gingers'
and to ridicule them in public in this fashion.
It is the equivalent of racism and should not be seen in Australian society- let alone
sponsored by the Victorian Government.
I'm a red head and I'm a teacher. First off: I find the use of the word ""ginga"" highly highly
offensive. It's demeaning and highly discriminatory. Secondly: Red heads having sex is
displayed in a negative tone. Not only is this demeaning but this is also false. Thirdly:
Students are going to go into schools tomorrow and red headed children are going to be
bullied twice over the rate that they already are. There is permanent emotional damage being
done to red headed children already this is only going to exacerbate the situation.
Over all this ad is a form of bullying. It's highly offensive to a group of people which in our
community is severly on going. If we were a recognised minority group and we are a
minority group. Nothing like this would be allowed in the media. This is completly and utterly
ridiculous. Especially since the government is back it it's nice to know that they have the well
being of students and adults in mind.
As a redhead I am so tired of the so called ""tongue in cheek"" approach to people with our
colouring - it is one thing to expect or endure it year after year in the childish context of the
school yard quite another to have it reinforced by this campaign.
I find it utterly repulsive that my tax dollars now support a campaign which reinforces the
derogatory message that it is supposedly ""hip/ trendy/ funny"" to ridicule people such as
myself.
Best put by The Age:
""In one of the advertisements a voiceover tells teenagers that every time they use mobile
phones and drive ''gingers get fresh with other gingers'' while showing two redheads in
bed.""
Also ""redhead gets his wings"" (or similar) in a different advert.
While vilifying people with red hair may or may not be against section 2.1 of the AANA Code
of Ethics it is certainly against the spirit of it.
It's schoolyard bullying with the stamp of government approval.
This ad promotes an already existing problem in out society which is a negative attitudes to
some minority groups such as redheads and ""emos"". I am a mother of a redhead who is
often put down for his hair colour and this can be very distressing for him. It is very
offensive that the government is promoting/sanctioning this behaviour. Do they have any
understanding of the effect that this campaign will have on the behaviour of 15 year old
bullies? It is against their own anti-bullying policy eg
http://www.bullyingnoway.com.au/issues/personal.shtml
http://www.education.vic.gov.au/aboutschool/childhealth/bullying.htm
Given the government seems to have no insight into the issues it would be great if your
organisation could use it's influence to stop these ads. Thank you Irene
As a red haired person who lives in Australia I am deeply offended by the government
picking on a minority to shame people out of using mobile phones while driving.
I felt that the ad unfairly discriminates against redheads and makes us the subject of yet
more ridicule.
I can't believe government funds are being used to make fun of minorities particularly after
all the trouble the Indians are having....
I dont see how they feel that it is ok to descriminate people based on looks or choice (such as
'emo') and poke fun at these groups. If they are allowed to continue these peoples lives could
be further effected in highschools etc (the demographic aimmed at with these ads.) I think
they are terrible and should be removed before others can see them. As a redhead myself i
can tell you how hard it was during school as i was picked on by my peers. And now a
government body is picking on these kids themselves? It is terrible and unacceptable; and
honestly i dont see how they would encourage drivers of any age to refrain from mobile
phone usage or to wear seat belts.
Thankyou and i hope this issue can be resolved soon
R Haynes
I am a red head and so is my husband. These ads imply that there is a problem with being a
red head and with two red heads being in a sexual relationship. I'd love to see Vic govt try
targeting Asian people getting ""fresh"". It's the same thing and it is discrimination. The emo
ad is disgusting as being branded an ""emo"" is a way of bullying and isolating others and it
is encouraging this attitude in young people. I really can't believe these ads made it to air.
Absolutely disgusting and not the sort of values and beliefs we want to instill in the youth of
today. I'd like to see these ads come off air asap.
This advertisement clearly discriminates against the red haired population particularly
children who are already the subject of schoolyard taunts/abuse/assault simply because the
colour of their hair. The fact the Government is using red haired people having sex as an
amusing/disgusting reason to be safe on the roads is disgraceful and will incite further
discrimination against the red haired population. The same can be said about the similar
emo campaign which targets a subculture. This campaign is in direct violation of the
Victorian Government's own anti-bullying policy as described on their website and should be
removed with apology to those it has affected.
Derogatory of a group of people based on their appearance. Infers a group of people are
innately unattractive based on their hair colour. Incites bullying. Incites name calling. Uses
derogatory language.
Ms Jolly if ""Red-hair"" is not strictly covered by the code then the code must be reviewed
and changed NOW.... Really really bad answer. This is not an issue that many of us in the
community are just prepared to drop.
I saw this ad today and was shocked I showed it to my wife thisafternoon and she cried
remembering the bullying that she underwent during her school life. I have a wife and son
with red hair this ad sugests that the world would be better if people with red hair did not
breed. Having red hair IS a genetic and racial characteristic just like having different
coloured skin. I do not believe that VicRoads should be targeting red hair as an inferior
component of our community even if they do mean it in jest. This advertisment will result in
further bullying and taunting of people with red hair and that is unacceptable.
I can not believe that VicRoads is actively degrading a part of our community to get its
message across. This is disgusting. I also can't believe you are not coming down harder on
them.
Ridiculing an ethnic minority in a boorish and highly offensive manor. This ad will lead to
red headed children being bullied and teased and is completely inappropriate for a
government to endorse. I have never complained about an ad before but this has really
offended me. I feel very strongly that the ad must be removed immediately.
I find the use of the word ""D***head"" entirely inappropriate in this communication forum
that being a public announcement that will be heard by a large sector of the community. It is
promoting a lowering of language standards and paints the youth of today as sub-intelligent
individuals who do not respond to a higher vocabulary. It also reflects a lack of intelligence
substance and wit on the part of the ad's creators; and poor judgement by our current State
government.
There are many powerful and emotive words in the English language that when used
correctly have far greater impact than commonplace ignorant expletives.
I strongly take the view that it is inappropriate to target and belittle a sub-section of the
community on the basis of their appearance or ethnic background. When I visited the UK
several years ago I was mystified as to why ginger-haired people should be singled out and
ridiculed and took pride that this prejudice did not exist in Australia. I am appalled that an
Australian government-endorsed communication would even entertain the idea that it is
appropriate to give fuel to the fire of small-mindedness and bullying. Particularly offensive
is the pronunciation of the word 'ginger' to rhyme with 'minger' (pronounced like 'swinger' a synonym for 'really ugly' in the UK). It is also absolutely no justification for the content
that it is shocking and noteworthy - in what I presume is a poor second-try attempt to
recreate the shock value of 'Drink Drive Bloody Idiot' the advertising agency have
presumed the effectiveness of the original strategy to lie in its colloquial and 'in-your-face'
approach when in fact the original execution brought home the message in a much more
effective way. This shows appalling and immature judgement all around well done for
doing your bit in bringing Australia down that little bit further towards the lowest common
denominator. Also ASB - just because it doesn't strictly fall inside your prescribed guidelines
you still have a role as arbiter of whether or not it is appropriate - this is sensational in
completely the wrong sense and you bear a part of the responsibility. BTW am not a
redhead myself so don't write off my complaint on that basis.
I am offended by the term ""gingas"" as slang for a person with redhair and also I'm
extremely offended by the implication that people with red hair are some how unattractive
inferior sub human or otherwise undeserving of respect or human rights. In my opinion this
encourages bullying and the propagation of discrimination against a group of people that are
a minority in Australian society. Apart from that the ad fails to mention the real reasons that
people should not use their phones while driving i.e that it's dangerous and illegal.
Reagrds
- Murray Creagh
The Language used is not appropriate.
The ad denigrates and discriminates against people with red-hair. The ad suggests that red
haired people are so repulsive that they should not reproduce. The ad also uses offensive
languange - referring to people with red hair as ""it"" - a term that is used to further dehumanize people with red hair. Like race ethnicity age or sex - hair colourings eye colour
and skin tone is generally NOT a matter of choice - it is what someone is born with. It is not
acceptable that a person might be bullied or discriminated against based on a genetically
determined physical feature.
On a personal note as a women with red hair who has 2 children with red hair - I find the
advertisment insulting in the extreme. This advertisment sanctions and encourages bullying
and discrimination against people born with a specific colouring. This blatant vilification can
not be seen as acceptable.
The term ""dickhead"" is commonly used in the community in a bullying context. Using this
language in such an ad seems to legitimise a form of verbal bullying. This in turn has the
real potential to extend verbal bullying in to the general community.
Being a red head I am obviously more than a little concerned that this type of advertising
further encourages people to discriminate against red heads. It is certainly something that I
am used to but with official government advertising all but sanctioning this type of behaviour
I believe discrimination will increase. The ads are marketed at young people and that is
where the majority of my concerns lie. As adults the discrimination is only done in good
humour with children it is more sinister and bullying will only be encouraged by these types
of advertisements.
The premise that ""gingers"" will go to bed with each other if you talk on your mobile phone
whilst driving degrades red heads even further. Simply replace the word ginger with
Aboriginal and see what reaction you get!
The ads are offending to me as it further evidence that ""gingers"" are an OK target we are
a minority in the community yet offered no protection against this sort of thing.
Ignoring the hypocrisy of the Brumby governments stance against bullying I believe this
advertisemet will further reinforce the notion that even the government thinks it's allowable
to discriminate and bully red heads.
I believe that implied in section 2.1 of the AANA Code of Ethics is a prohibition against
discriminating against the inherent makeup of an invididual or class of people.
Being born with red hair is part of a person's genetic makeup. It is not acceptable for a
government body to be vilifying a minority group that has been the subject of unexplained
ridicule in the past with the result that public mockery of redheads is effectively being
endorsed by the government.
I am grossly offended by this advertisement and request that an investigation be conducted
as to its appropriateness in light of my comments above. It goes without saying that the
subject matter of the advertisement has no connection with the objects within it which in my
view supports the proposition that this advertisement has no real purpose other than to
spread distaste within the community it is purporting to protect.
The use of redheads in this campaign is discriminatory and offensive. It presents redheads as
being freaks genetically inferior and a human type that should be discouraged from
reproducing . Moreover the ""redheads"" in the ad-the actors-do not appear to be redheads
at all (you probably couldn't find a redheaded actor who would subject themselves to this
ridicule). It is the equivalent of advertising with ""blackface.""
Offensive use of the word dickhead and the offensiveness and discrimination towards
redheads and the so called 'emos'.
Firstly I fear the ads encourage further bullying of people with red hair. Secondly i find the
term 'dickhead' offensive.
I object to the derisive comments and insinuations directed at the natural physical
appearance of people with red hair. It mocks those who look different: those in a minority.
People with red hair are just people like everybody else: they do not drink more alcohol
cause more road traffic accidents street violence or harm to others than anyone else so it is
very very cruel to imply that they do and that they should not 'breed'. It is heartless and
unethical to imply that they should not be part of the miracle of birth and life just because of
the colour of their hair. It is unutterably cruel. Everyone is precious: there are no exceptions.
Every life is precious. That's why we need to change the drinking and driving habits of
society. Because every life is precious. There are no exceptions. This advertisement loads yet
more bullying onto red-haired people and undermines all the efforts of decent people who are
trying to stop bullying in all its wicked forms.
To whom it may concern
I would like to express my disgust and outrage at the latest round of VicRoad and
Government endorsed TV ad campaigns as referenced in the two following links:
http://theage.drive.com.au/governments-dont-be-a-dickhead-campaign-takes-aim-atgingers-emos-20100329-r7gr.html
http://media.theage.com.au/gingas-grow-wings-new-vic-roads-ad-1269438.html
I cannot understand in any way shape or form how this campaign contributes to the
furtherance of or greater good of the Australian community. At a minimum I see this ad
campaign contributing to the moral decay of our society in particular an increase in:
-Bullying of all forms especially towards minority groups (in our work place bullying has
already commenced by passing the above links around via email and discriminating against
people who fall into these two minority groups)
-Discrimination against minority groups
-Depression - this is already a vast issue with our youth not to mention those who fall into
the so-called 'emo' category. I have a very close family member who is labelled as 'emo' by
her peers and she is currently being watched for potential suicide attempts. I cannot see how
this campaign assists her with her difficulties? If anything it may well propagate the issue as
she is no doubt already being abused by her peers as she is referenced against the
aforementioned links
-Suicide
-the loss of respect for fellow instructions
-Vulgar language - Australia has fallen a long way in terms of 'respectable' language. This
latest campaign does nothing but further desensitise the general public (especially our young
members of society) by giving the message that this type of language is 'OK' and 'acceptable'.
After all our country leaders said it so it must be OK right?
-Destruction of self esteem - these minority groups often already suffer from low self esteem
and identity issues; the government is now communicating that the bullying discrimination
and petty name calling against people who are different to you is now the norm.
-Degradation of our multi-cultural way of life - this campaign targets specific minority
groups but how long before it becomes the status quo to start verbally (and physically)
humiliating other minority groups such as those of different races. This problem is already
ride today in Australia (have you so easily forgotten the Cronulla riots and bashings?).
Congratulations to the Victorian and Australian Government if this contributes to the
reduction of the Victorian Road toll; shame on you if this contributes to a rise in depression
discrimination racism and sexism leading to an increase in suicide hate bashings/killings
and verbal abuse.
As leaders of our states and country the Victorian and Australian Government have a
responsibility to be upstanding members of society with a clear conscience of the impact of
their words and actions.
I find these ad campaigns reprehensible vulgar and a clear sign of the moral decay and
degradation of our society and way of life.
I am ashamed to be Australian and ashamed of our government „leaders‟ who are supposed
to represent the essence of being Australian who should epitomise all that Australia stands
for. If this kind of ad campaign is the new Australia then I for one am bitterly disappointed
and will no longer stand tall and proud for my country.
Yours sincerely
Tristan Quick
I am offended by the term ""ginga"" or ""ginger"" used to describe a redheaded person in the
commercial but mostly I am highly offended at the deplorable insinuation in the commercial
that it is somehow wrong or offensive that redheads have sex or breed.
Offended by negative stereotyping of red haired people. Having suffered bullying and having
watched my sons receive similar treatment because of our red hair I found the advertisement
extremely offensive. It would never have been put to air if it had been about a short
overweight bald Minister of the Crown of Mediterranean extraction.
The offensive language that is used in this campaign.
I am appalled as a visitor from the UK that the notion of redheads having sex is seen as a bad
thing. I think this is a basic human rights issue. It's racism it's prejudice and it's a very very
bad joke.
I think this should be withdrawn and what's more a formal apology issued on the same
media - billboards TV etc - for the offense caused.
i think the bad language is also very questionable
i look forward to hearing from you
Ginger ads - people with red hair have this hair colour as a result of their genetic
background or 'race'. To be used as a deterrant for road safety crimes is ridiculous. It can be
likened to saying that every time you use a mobile phone whilst driving someone with another
physical characteristic such as 'brown skin' or 'very short' breeds - it is disgraceful to use a
genetic characteristic as a deterrant.
Emo ads - for a similar reason people who identify as Emos are not just doing it to look cool
or dress funny - Emo appearance also comes with social political & religious beliefs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emo It is not fair to use people who dress or look a certain way
as a deterrant - someone who identifies as an Emo is most likely identifying with a social and
political set of beliefs that has been around since the 1980s an off-set of the Punk movement.
The questionable road safety advertisement (do not use Mobile Phones when driving
advertisement) by the Victorian Government Road Safety Department villifies red-haired
people in the worst possible manner. The advert directly accuses red-haired people of being
half-wits less than competent and of such a debase nature that they should be discouraged
from having relationships with one another. While every other 'type of person' or 'personal
characteristic' seems today to be protected by some form of racial or sexual anit-vilification
legislation or anti-discrimination legislation it seems that red-heads are still 'fair game.'
This is just a sick and despicable campaign. I am a red head one of my sons is a red head
and one of my son's girlfiends is a red head and the abuse we have suffered and often
continue to suffer in 'everyday life' is atrocious - and what we DON'T need is some smarty in
the advertising agency trying to get a cheap laugh at our expense. Do the right thing
PLEASE and shut-down this discriminatory advertisement now!
I was extremely offended by the reference to ""gingers"" targetting readheads as secondclass people who perhaps should not be allowed to breed. I have a redheaded son who has
had to cope with teasing about his hair colour and this only makes it worse. I believe it is
discriminating on the grounds of personal appearance.
I am also a teacher and I know that students will be quoting this ad to me and this will make
any readheaded students feel uncomfortable and possibly could lead to bullying. I also object
to using the term ""dickhead"" in the ad as many students will use this term justifying it by
the fact that it was in a Vicroads ad so it must be OK to say it.
I am offended in particular by the adds that refer to red-headed people. ""Ginga's get fresh"".
As a person with red hair who has had put up with name calling and abuse for most of my life
due to colour of my hair I am offend that the Victorian Government feel it is ok to ""poke
fun"" at redheads in this way. If you where to change this image from someone with red hair
to someone of Asian/African/Middle Eastern decent if would more than likely be seen as
racist. As a Victorian taxpayer I am appalled that my tax dollars have been used in this way.
On a personal note I still occasionally get abuse from strangers in the street about the
colour of my hair and I feel the government approving adds like this only condones this kind
of anti-social behaviour.
To whom it may concern
Offensive advertisement
The proposed 'Dickhead"" advertisement aimed at deterring? young drivers from speeding is
a bad taste. It has bad language and violence (smashing a computer) what sort of message
does not send out to our young people? Is this sort of behavior OK? not in my opinion.
If this passes your standards your standards are very low why have standards? most
advertisement are getting rather tacky and shallow but his takes the cake on our way to the
gutter. What next I hate to think.
This advertisement is a clear breach of Human Rights & Equal Opportunity. It discriminates
against people who have red hair and alienates them is a wholly evil way. If we were to
replace 'red head' with 'black person' (a more obvious discriminatory subject) this ad would
never see the light of day.
This ad will result in redhead children being targeted. It encourages bullying.
It is a disgrace of the government department and needs removing.
I find this ad extremely offensive as I am a redhead. The add is intended to spread predudice
against redheaded people which is totally wrong especially for a government agency.
The advertising campaign (including related adverts) implies that it is wrong for two
redheaded people to reproduce for fear of bringing more readheaded people into the world. I
have interpreted this message to mean the victorian government are promoting the idea that
it would be beneficial to 'breed out' redheads effectively ilemenating them from the
population.
I have been subjected to bullying during my whole life due to my hair colour. I am old
enough to stand up for myself now however have underlying issues relating to my
appearance which these ads do not help. These ads are severely detrimental to children and
teenagers who are currently subject to bullying in schools.
The advertising campagne is extremely upsetting to me and I believe will promote further
predudice towards me in the future.
I demand that these advertisments be removed immediately and the people responsible for
airing them be severely reprimanded.
The ads make derogatory statements about marginalised groups: people with red hair and
people who choose the lifestyle known as 'Emo'.
I understand this does not currently fit within code however I suggest the code be widened to
include negative attacks on marginalised groups based soley on their appearance.
A case could also be made that targeting people with red hair does fall under the category of
ethenticity as this is a predominant trait of people with Irish and Scottish heritage.
These advertisments are encouaging Bullying behaviour alienation of red haired children
and adults. These adverts are against government policy with respect to Human rights work
place and school yard bullying policy and against social values.
I have red hair and i am offended and insulted by these adds. My children are also offended
and insulted. We have had direct instances of alienation and harrasment as a result of these
advertisments. These adverts are apealing to the element of society who are prone to bullying
behaviour.
The government and other organisations have been working toward eliminating bullying
behaviour and the negative consequences of this. These ads are directly encouraging bullying
behaviour and not acceptable in my society.
Please have them removed ASAP
This ad clearly denigrates people with red hair. This is in the same class of offensiveness as
racism. People with red hair have enough taunts to deal with and this ad just reinforces their
minority status. It also contravenes the Victoria Government's own Anit Bullying policy.
I find the advertisement highly offensive due to the derogatory comment towards redheads. I
find this highly discriminatory. If redheads were replaced with for example Africans Asians
Muslims or any other minority it would not have gone to air. I cannot understand why the
Victorian government deemed it OK to be discriminatory towards redheads. It is sending a
very disturbing message. I look forward to the progress on this complaint. Thanks
I feel these 2 ads prey on the hatred/marginalisation of two minorities with the community one which is genetic and the other a lifestyle choice. They incite hatred and disharmony
within the community. If the terms "emo" and "ginga" were replaced with other terms like
"jew" "musilm" "spastic" etc there would be a lot more uproar in the popular press.
Thinking that this kind of advert can even be made makes me ill.
The use of swear words like ""dickhead"" and ""shithouse"" is unneccessary and a poor way
to convey road safety.
The word "dickhead" was offensive to me.
I object because: the add gratuitously uses sex to convey an unrelated message - uses
inappropriate language ie it undermines my role as a parent by using the word "dickhead".
- jokes about minority sub-cultures (Emo's) - is contrary to the State Government's own
policies regarding respect and bullying. I believe that the Government has deliberately
created a controversial advertisement that has by its nature and as could reasonably be
expected been more widely promoted in the media (TV radio online). This has exposed my
young children (age 2.5 and 6) to inappropriate language that undermines my parenting.
I'm horrified the government is promoting discrimination against people with red hair. This
ad should never have been allowed to air in the first place. Even if it gets pulled a single
airing is damaging enough.
I object to the ad because it is ridiculing and picking on minorities which whilst may not be
legally protected by law as they don't fall under a religion sexual orientation gender or
ethnic group these ads will encourage the young and mindless to bully and taunt others
because of their appearance. Young people such as red-heads are already teased because of
their appearance some even suicidal this is irresponsible advertising and immature. Also
the use of the word Dickhead is not acceptable it may be referencing a part of the male
sexual organ so not really appropriate either. Kids and teenagers will see these ads (they are
aimed at some teenagers) and the encouragement of this sort of language is not appropriate.
However it is more the bullying of minorities that concerns me.
As a redhead I think it is disgusting thoughtless and an outrage that you think this ad is
worthy. Can you swap the gingers for an aboriginal person or an Indian maybe a few
asians? Is this ad still ok? Bullying does not need the help of the government. If this is your
creative best it just isnt good enough. The ad sucks it should NEVER be played on air pity it
is now out in the universe via the internet.
My sister and brother in law both have red hair and I find it extremely offensive that they are
portrayed in this campaign as something that should be stopped. you wouldn't see an ad like
this using two jewish people or muslims or anything to do with religion or 2 black people.
Advertisements like this are outcasting groups that are already in the minority and it
condones society teasing / outcasting people. Red haired people already have it tough enough.
It is even more disgusting that the Vic State government created this ad and allowed it to air.
It is offensive to any redhead and so called "emos". What a discraceful ad! You should be
ashamed of yourselves. How does an add like this make it onto TV. Take a long hard look at
your procedures because they don't work.
Vilifies redheads and ""emos"".
Outrageous irresponsible and unaccetable.
It promotes bullying and discriminatory behaviour towards redheads and "emos". As a
redhead who suffered bullying as a child I was offended by the messages in the ad and also
by the language ie dickhead. I don't want my young children exposed to that sort of
language.
Both ad's imply that people with ginger or red hair are ""dickheads"". They compare the
actions of a careless driver to a red-haired/ginger person and then classify's them as
""dickheads"". The add is offensive and targets people.
It feeds prejudice against red head people like myself. This ad is hateful to redhead people
and makes us out to be dirty ""gingers"". I understand this ad is supposed to be humorous
but by targeting redheads and making out like two redheads ""getting fresh"" is a dirty thing
vilifies redhead people everywhere. I have had a gut full of the negative and hateful content
on TV and the internet against people with redhead and feel like it has been open season on
us.
Its degrading of readheads and emos and will result in bullying of a sector of our community
I find the way teha d portarys this group of society and demeaning
I have red hair and in one of these ads two red heads are depicted as having sex.
The ad says ""Every time you drive using a mobile phone two gingers get it on "" (or
something very similar). I find this very very offensive.
Also there is a similar ad that says ""Every time you drive using a mobile phone and emo is
born "" which I'm sure that emos find offensive. Then the ""emo"" is shown to put up her
""rude"" finger.
If this ad swapped hair colour with skin colour it would have never made it to air. I do not
like being made out to be a 2nd class citizen where if I decide to procreate it being seen as a
bad thing. No-one would dare say ""or aboriginals would breed"" or ""homosexuals will
marry each other"" so why should my particular minority be targeted for ridicule?
The use of offensive stereotypes such as Asians are considered bad drivers that other red
heads should not procreate with other red heads so as to reduce the total number of red
heads. Also emo's ""Everytime you use your mobile phone while driving an emo is born"".
Even though I find all three I have viewed offensive I particularly find the one about those
with red hair offensive. I am a red head myself and I find it very difficult in day to day life
being harassed by everyday people just walking down the street the way it is. Ad campaigns
like this saying we shouldn't even be born and implying we are a bad thing aren't going to
make this stupid stereotype go away.
All three are disgusting you should view them and get rid of them as soon as possible.
Please do not let them go viral on the internet as was intended.
As a person with red or ginger hair I found the ad offensive in its implication that red headed
people were somehow distasteful ugly or inferior.
As a redhead I find the advertisement obscenely offensive insulting and discriminatory.
Being subjected to bullying during my early childhood education years I believe this is a
huge step backward for the younger children of today's society. This advertisement just
encourages even more harassment then what we have all ready have had to endure - well
done Government money well spent.
Jodi
Discriminating minorities. Making derogatory comments. I do not want my children
growing up in a country which makes it ok to make fun of people who have red hair. If this
advertisement was about Indigenous people or people who have immigrated here or about
people of a particular sexual persuasion or about women or the elderly there would be no
end to the trouble caused. I cannot believe that this ad was allowed to even be made. The ad
is aimed at young drivers which I suspect is the same age group with highest suicides (young
men). What a terrible idea. I cannot fathom how this was even passed through the proper
channels and deemed as suitable. It's sickening to think that bullying has just been made
acceptable.
This advert is absolutely disgusting and is discrimination based on physical appearance. This
is unacceptable and the human rights commission would back this 100%. Why is it OK to
poke fun at red heads but if the advert referred to the colour of a persons skin it would be
'racist' and illegal? They are both discrimination in the cruelest form. Is the advertising
commission going to condone this? No wonder so many people are bullied because they have
red hair with ridiculous adverts like this! I am a school teacher and I have witness this
misery first hand.
It seems that the media are more concerned with the phrase 'dick head' being used instead of
focusing on the discriminatory context of the advert. Which just emphasises the small minded
and insensitive nation of Australia. I am personalty appalled by this!
This advertisement is absolutely appalling: ""advertising or marketing communications shall
not portray people or depict material in a way which DISCRIMINATES against or vilifies A
PERSON OR SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY on account of race ethnicity nationality
sex age.""
Whether 'gingers' or 'emos' are/aren't covered by the code is irrelevant - the ad is completely
demeaning and discriminating (children and teenagers with red hair have more than enough
to deal with at school - how much more bullying and psychological harm will this campaign
cause?). It creates a negative attitude and stereotype towards 'ginger' people - this is
discrimination (maybe they should try the ad campaign with skin colour or race?). Would it
be acceptable then?
This advert is completely discriminating and possibly harmful towards young people;
furthermore it has NO relation or link to what the campaign is attempting to preach.
Vilifies minority groups ""emos"" and ""redheads"".
Bad language ""dickhead"".
Extremely discriminatory and offensive.
I find the language of these advertisements both written and spoken very offensive to myself
and to my children. I strongly believe that this campaign breaches section 2 of the AANA
Code of Ethics.
I ask that this campaign be removed from air immediately and the advertisers and/or their
agents be sanctioned for breaching the relevant code.
The ad seems to be promoting discrimination against the 1-3% of the population descended
from north/western Europe who have red hair with a side interest in suggesting road safety
concepts should be noted.
This group is subject to enough discrimination bullying and harassment without a
government agency promoting that behaviour. It's offensive and I've already seen bullying as
a direct result of the ad.
The use of offensive language isn't new for government campaigns but it is hard to tell kids
not to use that language when it's promoted by our public authorities.
Use of the word Dick Head which is unsuitable for children to hear at any time. Whilst it mat
be term used at certain times by certain demographics it is offensive to a large percentage of
the community.
There is also discrimination towards Red Heads and Emos which is unacceptable and
offensive
quite simply the word DICKHEAD
is the TAC exempt from using filth like this?
i thought language like this was not allowed?
. If I was to make an ad that says ' When you break the law on the road black people will be
born"" can you imagine how much of an outcry there would be? I have red hair . What on
earth is the relationship between illegal activity on the road and people with red hair? I wish
this ad to be pulled and an apology to be made.
I feel that the use of emos and redheads in this fashion is degrading to all people with red
hair and those who choose an emo lifestyle look. It has no relevance to the subject matter and
isolates THESE PEOPLE FROM MAINSTREAM SOCIETY
Discriminates against and villifies people with red hair. Potentially breaches Federal and
State anti-discrimination legislation and the international Human Rights Charter. I have a
child that has been bullied as a direct result of this advertisement.
I urge you to add redheads to the discrimination code particularly in light of the recent
Vicroads campaign. You may not have noticed but redheads have taken the place of the
ridiculed in almost every advertising campaign over the past 5 years in particular. It is
almost always a person with red hair and fair skin that loses or is the butt of the joke in
advertising campaigns. This includes recent advertisements for banks and car makers to
name two groups that immediately come to mind. I believe that this stereotyping is making it
significantly more difficult for kids with red hair of school age and should be carefully
considered in light of recent bullying tragedies.
If people with fair skin and red hair were part of a nation or a race then there would be an
outcry. I urge you to take action to ensure that this stereotyping does not become an
accepted any further than it already is.
I object to the portrayal of redheaded people in this add. I am particularly concerned that the
ads might encourage bullying of young people who are singled out because of the colour of
their hair.
I'm used to seeing ginger bashing from the general public but I never thought I'd see it from
the government! I consider this to be nothing less that Government sanctioned discrimination
villification and racism. Laws protect people from being discriminated against for race
gender sexuality and religious belief however if you're a red head you have to just take it.
Now this type of behaviour is sanctioned by the Victorian Goverment. Surely they must be in
contravention of section 7 of the Religious and Racial Tollerance Act.
Bullying and bigotry are big issues these days. It is disturbing that this campaign makes fun
of redheads a minority group that are not protected by anti-discrimination laws.
As a redhead I have absolutely no control over the colour of my hair and I should not be
made to feel embarrassed inferior or a lesser person because of it. I certainly demand that I
am not singled out by the Government and derided on this basis. This is completely
inappropriate humiliating and distateful.
It is absolutely outraged that an Government sanctioned ad campaign aimed at people who
have no respect for others because they drive at speeds that are unacceptable or use mobile
phones whilst driving endangering the lives of the innocent is bankrolled by the government
should condone the bullying and harassment of people who already are being given a hard
time. These people who drive in this way have no respect and you're now giving them the
right to target people on the basis of how they look in exchange for toning down their illegal
behavior!
I demand that you have these bigoted racist ads removed immediately.
The ad in question is derogitry to red heads I myself find it offensive as a red head also the
languadge used is not appropriate for the timeslot
Picking on red haired people encouraging the term ""ginga"" is offensive and mean. Red
haired kids get picked on enough without this stupid ad legitimsing it. The ad says that red
people are unattractive and offensive and they don't deserve to have sex! It's horrible. Also I
don't like being given the finger by some teenager whilst being told I shouldn't be a
""dickhead""... if this is the best the government can come up with God help us!! Dickhead is
much worse than ""bloody"". Thank you for your time.
It uses discrimination against red haired people which will compound existing discrimination
towards red haired people. It should therefore be held accountable for any compounded
outcomes of discrimination already being experienced by individuals.
Depicting redheads in the ad in poor light has created more public comments about redhair
than usual. If the ad depicted a Sudanese or Asian person it would have been called racist
and there would be a public backlash. What is the difference between hair colour of a
minority group and skin colour of a minority group. I found the ad extremely offensive.
Apply the same standard/script to another group such as aboriginals Jewish people or the
physically handicapped and I think the offensive nature of the ads become quite obvious.
I am a redhead and I think these ads purposely treat redheads as stupid/geeky and imply by
its nature that they are somehow inferior and perhaps ugly. It stereotypes a group of people
and singles them out based on their appearance which is similar to singling them out on the
basis of race. I believe the end result is that it will cause redheaded individuals to be seen as
somehow lesser than others. I have to admit if I had actually found the ads to be humorous I
may have put them in the old ""Aussie self-depecating"" basket and perhaps even enjoyed
them but I think they miss the mark completely. The fact that the media have assisted them in
going viral is unfortunate - I for instance may never have seen them.
I object to these commercials on the basis that they denigrate a group of people based upon
their appearance.
I object to the advertisement because it is grossly offensive to redheaded people. Although
intended to be humourous it has the potential to incite bullying of redheads. I do not believe
that it is appropriate to single out and make a target of particular people based on their looks.
The only point this advertisement makes is to encourage people to mock and demean people
who look a certain way. The message of not using a mobile phone whilst driving is lost under
the veneer of discrimination against redheaded people.
EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE - DICKHEAD. THERE IS NOT NEED FOR THIS.
AND REFERRAL TO THE REDHEAD GROUP: I.E PEOPLE WITH REDHAIR. THIS
ADVERTISMENT WILL ENCOURAGE BULLYING DISCRIMINATION I.E THAT
PEOPLE WITH REDHAIR DRIVE BADLY/SPEED CONTRIBUTE TO THE ROAD TOLL
THERE IS SIMPLY NO NEED FOR ANY OF THIS. SIMPLY IT IS THE MOST OFFENSIVE
ADVERTISMENT CAMPGAIN I HAVE EVER SEEN. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE
EVER FELT THE NEED TO WRITE TO THE ASB.
1. Is an example of victimization of redheads and social groups (so-called Emos).
2. Encourages this bullying behaviour in others especially children and teenagers. The
catchphrases in these ads will soon be taken up by school bullies to abuse redheads emos etc.
all sanctioned by the Victorian Government.
3. Offensive language is used.
As a teacher in a government school I do not allow bullying and offensive language. It is
also my school's policy not to allow tolerate bullying and offensive language. However I will
find it much more difficult to maintain acceptable standards of behaviour in my classroom
because of these ads. After all the Government has now given the green light to swear
regardless of the immediate situation and formality of the message communicated and bully
based on appearance or social grouping.
These ads should be removed immediately and the Government should apologise
unreservedly.
The ad is blatant discrimination based on physical characteristics of an individual or group
of people (people with red hair) and should be removed from circulation immediately. In the
USA and in international civil rights laws this add is a violation of civil rights for
discrimination based on physical characteristics of an individual or group of people. Further
the advertising stadards bureau by allowing this add to contininue to be viewed after prior
complaints based on discrimination suggests you are complicit in the discrimination. It
should be required to be pulled from circulation immediately.
Red heads are routinely victimised and bullied through their youth simply because of the
colour of their hair. It is incredibly offensive that a government business thinks it's ok to
sanction and encourage via ""humour"" a type of bullying that contributes to childhood and
teen depression and suicidal tendencies. This ad should not be permitted to air. Why didn't
you choose to target Asians black people aborigines? Of course because that would be
racist but having a particular hair colour because of an Irish / Scottish heritage is not?
I object to the nature of the advertisements as they encourage discrimination through the use
of the word 'Ginger' in a derogatory manner. I also object to the ads using the descrimination
of any kind as incentive for road safety. Regardless of the use of the word 'Ginger' using
descrimination against any minority group to promote anything is not something I would
expect to see in a Government funded ad and something I find personally offensive on many
levels. Further more the ads also suggest that descrimination against redheads is a right
and/or responsibility of all citisens and is something that needs to be taken seriously. The ads
in question don't merely promote descrimination they suggest people who do not
descriminate against redheads are somehow a burden or bane on society as a whole and are
likened to irresponsible drivers or drivers who cause the death of others on our roads. As a
tax paying citizen suggesting that not descriminating is as bad as killing someone is
offensive to both my common human deceny as well as my beliefs that all people are created
equal.
The ads also fail to create a viable link between the descrimination against redheads and
road safety begging the question what the hell one has to do with the other. Suggesting that
redheads are in fact not human beings and in fact are some form of animal capable of
growing wings at will or who's breeding are something society as a whole need to prevent
both shocks and offensd me. Such disregard and disrespect for the feelings and emotions of a
group of Australians from the Australian Government is something I thought I would never
see. The Victorian Government should frankly be ashamed of itself.
The intended 'viral' nature of the advertisements due to their obviously controversal content
has also failed to spread the road safety message and has merely spread the descrimination
message virally. I asked a co-worker this very morning about the ads to which they replied
they weren't able to recall what the ads were for only that the ads suggested - and I quote ""letting Gingers get fresh made you a dickhead"". This type of message shouldn't have ever
been allowed to air let alone be considered for public viewing. Perhaps the Australian
Government can use the heart-breaking stories of descrimination against the Aboriginals in
the 19th and 20th century to promote proper skin care in the sun?
The ads need to removed immediately.
I am absolutely disgusted and deeply offended with the portrayal of redheads being 'less
worthy' and unequal to the rest of the population and that by using your mobile you risk more
red heads being created!.Can you imagine if the ad portrayed homosexuals getting 'fresh'
how inappropriate that would be? it is exactly the same with vilifying someone by the colour
of their hair. The fact that the government has endorsed these ads is what is so upsetting.
These ads infer that is oaky to make fun of those who do not have the same appearance as
others. I would like an explanation as to the rationale that discriminating against someone is
okay and what the thought was behind these ads. Its fine to be controversial but not at the
expense of deliberately stigmatising people. There are several advertising and marketing
campaigns that have used redheads recently and they have been effective. The difference with
these (examples Adelaide zoo and lifesavers) - is that they have not inferred that redheads
are less worthy than anyone else or should be seen as unworthy. .
I found the VicRoads ads disturbing and highly offensive. The ads discriminate against emos
and people with red hair and unnecessarily brings in these groups in a despicable attempt to
appeal to young people's prejudices. 'Poleaxed' is also offensive to people who live with
disabilities resulting from road accidents.
In 'Gingas get fresh' the advertisement ludicrously suggests that there is a causal
relationship between using mobile phones while driving and red-haired people having sexual
intercourse with each other. 'Getting fresh' is teenage slang for having sex and the ad shows
two nude redheads in bed together. The link with unsafe driving is absurd and so is
presumably meant to be taken as a joke. Nonetheless the ad clearly portrays redheads
having sex as a negative thing and by implying that safe driving can stop this from occurring
the ad aims to provide an incentive for young people to drive safely. Moreover the deep
intonation and slow pace of the voice-over suggests that redheads having sex is something to
be frightened of or disgusted by and therefore something that we should try to eradicate.
Presumably the implication is that by preventing 'gingers' from having intercourse with each
other fewer redheads will be born and that this is a good thing.
'Red head gets its wings' is similarly offensive to people with red hair. ""To get wings"" is
slang for accomplishing sexual conquests and again there is the suggestion that we should
work to avoid red-haired people from engaging in this. The suggestion is made through the
dramatic intonation of the voice-over and through the asserted causal connection between
unsafe driving (against which the ad is campaigning) and redheads ""getting wings"".
VicRoads is not in a position to deny that the ad implies this since if redheads having sex is
not meant to be seen negatively the ad would contain no incentive to drive safely. I also
object to the inanimate pronoun 'it' being used to apply to a person with red hair (""...a
redhead gets its wings"") instead of 'his' or 'her'. This pronoun is typically used for objects
or animals rather than for people and as such its usage in this ad demeans redheads and
subtly implies that they are sub-human. I find it disturbing that VicRoads is appealing to
discriminatory prejudices and negative attitudes against red-haired people in a simple road
safety campaign. The insidious suggestion that the world would be better without red-haired
people is highly offensive and divisive and should have no place in road-safety advertising.
In 'Emo' the line ""Every time you use your mobile phone in your car an emo is born""
suggests that the number of 'emos' in our society can be reduced with safer driving practices.
This suggestion is discriminatory and offensive in a similar way to the two ads discussed
above. Again VicRoads is in no position to deny this since if the ad is not viewed as an
incitement of negative attitudes to emos the ad contains no incentive to refrain from mobile
phone usage whilst driving. The closing line of the clip ""Emo may or may not be born""
(similar disclaimers exist at the end of the redhead ads) does nothing to remove the
offensiveness of the ad and is clearly intended more as a parody of other advertisements. If
this line is truly intended to deny any possible causal connection between mobile phone use
and emos being born then why include emos in the ad at all?
'Poleaxed' is offensive for rather different reasons. The clip is clearly a parody of more
serious safety ads that tell the story of the survivors of actual accidents and that describe the
injuries and disabilities they are forced to live with. I am concerned that this ad makes a
mockery of those advertisements thereby weakening the important safety messages they
contain. I am also concerned that 'Poleaxed' could be offensive to people with disabilities
obtained in real road accidents who may reasonably take offence at the flippant and jocular
way it treats the issue.
It is my view that these four ads from VicRoads' recent campaign are offensive to certain
groups of people and use language inappropriately and are therefore in breach of the AANA
Code of Ethics Section 2. While section 2.1 does not explicitly protect redheads it does
include 'race' which under most definitions (see for example www.humanrights.gov.au)
accounts for 'colour'. 'Colour' need not refer only to skin colour and as I have argued the
VicRoads ads vilify a section of the community on account of their hair colour. It would be
extremely unfair to exclude redheads from protection under 2.1 since they are as responsible
for their hair colour as say a black person is responsible for his/her skin colour or a
woman is responsible for her sex. Presumably VicRoads would not be tempted to pander to
prejudices by releasing ads along the lines of ""Every time you use your mobile phone whilst
driving a nigger is born"" or ""Every time you use your mobile phone whilst driving a
woman leaves the kitchen"". I fail to see the fundamental difference between these
hypothetical ads and the real ads released by VicRoads. If the only difference is that the
former are racist and sexist that is not enough. Racism is not wrong because it is racism it is
wrong because it is divisive exclusionary and offensive. The VicRoads ads are divisive
exclusionary and offensive to people with red hair and to emos.
2.1 does explicitly cover people with disabilities. 'Poleaxed' makes a mockery of
advertisements and programmes that describe the hardships endured by people with real
disabilities and so is discriminatory against this subsection of the community.
I also find the ads 'Gingas get fresh' and 'Red head gets its wings' to be in breach of section
2.5 of the Code of Ethics. The former uses an offensive term 'gingas' or 'gingers' for people
with red hair which many red-haired people feel to be in certain contexts as offensive as
racial slurs such as 'nigger'. The latter ad demeans redheads by referring to them with the
pronoun 'it'. Such language is discriminatory and in breach of 2.1 but is also inappropriate
in the circumstances and breaches section 2.5.
No doubt VicRoads will attempt the 'joke defence' and will argue that their portrayal of
redheads emos and people with disabilities was 'just a joke' and was not intended to be
taken too seriously or to cause offence. While I accept that VicRoads is attempting to use
humour to get their message across it is quite obviously a joke at the expense of certain
groups that have nothing to do with the central point of the campaign. It is also a joke that
may incite further bullying of these groups. The important question is not whether VicRoads
intend (or purport to intend) the ads as a joke but whether the community (and in particular
the groups vilified) find the ads offensive or inappropriate. The joke defence is also
hopelessly inadequate to account for the ads in context since they contain a serious message
about road safety and are couched in strong direct language (""Don't be a dickhead"") that
is obviously not jocular.
I am actually disgusted and utterly offended that a Government Department would release an
ad implying that a certain kind of people (in this case""gingers"") are somehow lower than
and inferior to the rest of the population.
If these advertisers used some other physical attribute - let's say skin colour or eye-shape there would be an uproar. Would they have released an ad saying ""Don't talk on your phone
while driving or black people will have sex and reproduce""?? No they most certainly would
not have - there is no amount of humour that would have made such ads acceptable at all.
But what is the difference between making fun of someone's hair colour and making fun of
someone's skin colour? As I read by someone on the internet recently: ""Discrimination
based on brown skin and curly hair is quite rightly illegal but discrimination based on pale
white skin and red hair is not??""
Why is discrimination based on physical appearance acceptable under any circumstances? It
certainly isn't acceptable in the Human Rights Commission.
In all my 35 years I've never seen an advertisement so vile and discriminatory as these two
advertisements. That they are both produced for a state government for the purposes of
community awareness on an issue of grave importance beggars belief. Both advertisements
imply that people with red hair are inferior in some way. The first suggests that the viewer
would not want a redhead ""get its wings"" (ie be acknowledged for doing good things). The
second implies that the viewer would not want to people with red hair breeding(??!!). That
they are intended to be ""humourous"" does not excuse the fact that they single out one
section of our community for taunting. Both ads are bullying and will lead to more bullying.
In fact the advertisements clearly intend to leverage the bullying of redheads that already
occurs in the community (why else single out redheads?). Both advertisements are clear
breaches of Section 2.1 of the Code of Ethics. They both discriminates against and vilify a
section of the community on account of their race and/or ethnicity as the characteristic of
having red hair is only associated with certain races and ethnicities (or segments of such).
Discrimination against people with red hair (in Australia at least) can be traced back to the
discrimination against the Scottish and Irish in the British Isles. This discrimination has even
led to violence directed at red heads for the simple fact that they have red hair see eg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6725653.stm. These advertisements encourage further
discrimination and further vilification of people with certain physical characteristics. They
will encourage the further teasing or bullying or making fun of people with red hair. Given
the community's concern over bullying it is incredible that anyone would permit this to be
released to the public. Imagine if the words ""red head"" or ""ginga"" were replaced in the
ads with the words ""Jew"" or ""Aborigine"" or ""retarded"" - there would be a public
outcry. My brother (who happens to be red head) works in a Western Sydney school and has
witnessed first hand the increase in bullying and taunting of red heads following the
broadcast of ""Summer Heights High"" and the ""Kick a Ginger"" South Park episode. The
singling out of any section of the population based on a physical characteristic must be
stopped. Please order these advertisements to be withdrawn as soon as possible.
THE ADVERTISER’S RESPONSE
Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complainant/s regarding this
advertisement include the following:
I refer to your letter of 31 March 2010, seeking a response to complaints received by you
regarding road safety information, in the form of viral clips, loaded on VicRoads‟ You Tube
site. It is VicRoads‟ view that the viral clips are not advertising or marketing communication
as defined in the AANA Code of Ethics. However, given the concerns expressed in the
complaints VicRoads will take this opportunity to respond to your letter.
Background
Research shows that talking on a mobile phone while driving a makes a person four times
more likely to crash, and texting while driving makes a person 20 times more likely to crash.
Using a mobile phone illegally whilst driving is the equivalent of having a blood alcohol
concentration of .08. Discouraging mobile phone use while driving is one of the biggest
challenges faced on Victorian roads. This is especially the case for younger more vulnerable
drivers (i.e. drivers aged between 18 and 25 years of age). In 2009 drivers between the ages
of 18 and 25 made up almost one third of Victoria‟s road toll. Already in 2010 they represent
25 per cent of Victoria‟s road toll.
VicRoads has developed a series of edgy and witty new viral clips aimed at influencing the
behaviour of these young Victorian drivers.
This initiative is designed to communicate using social media to engage the target audience
in a serious road safety message using language they understand. The clips will not be
distributed through main-stream media advertising, which includes television, press and
radio. The clips can be viewed on the VicRoads YouTube site (www.youtube.com/vicroads).
To view each clip the audience needs to voluntarily engage with the clip. Clips do not
automatically start when opening the web page.
The use of social media amongst this younger demographic is increasing, with 62 per cent of
all young people watching online videos and 58 per cent regularly visiting social networking
sites. It is important to communicate road safety messages in a way that is more likely to
reach the target audience (vulnerable drivers), using methods and messages that are likely to
be effective.
The objectives of this campaign are:
•
Raise awareness of the dangers of using mobile phones while driving,
•
Prepare young Victorians to be safer drivers, and
•
Create the perception that it is socially unacceptable to speed or use a phone while
driving.
Response to complaint reference 0148/10
The complaints raise concerns with language, sex/sexuality or nudity and discrimination or
vilification. These matters are dealt with in turn below.
Language
Section 2.5 of the AANA Code of Ethics provides that advertising and marketing
communications “shall only use language that is appropriate in the circumstances, and
further provides that “strong and obscene language should be avoided”.
It is considered that the use of the word “dickhead” is an appropriate use of language for the
target audience, and that in this context, the language is not strong or obscene.
The language and the tone used in these clips is appropriate because it is speaking to young
people in their own language and considered easy to recall by the target audience. As such it
is considered to have a better chance than other language, of effectively communicating the
message.
This view is supported by research commissioned by VicRoads on the use of the term
“dickhead” before launching the viral clips. Research focus groups consisted of participants
aged between 17-19 years, 20-24 years and 45-60 years, in both metropolitan and regional
Victoria.
The research recommended not to use „xxx‟ to block the word „dick‟, or to „bleep‟ the audio
voice. The research supported the use of the word dickhead in the viral clips.
The advertising content was specifically targeted at a young adult audience.
It is considered that the use of viral method of distribution was appropriate for the message.
It was uploaded onto the VicRoads YouTube website to be viewed and shared consensually
among young adult internet users. The viral spread of the campaign was carried out through
social media in order to reach that audience. As this campaign was not designed for
television or radio broadcast, it provided an opportunity to target language specific to a
demographic.
Curbing the use of mobile phones by young drivers is a VicRoads priority. To encourage the
viral spread of this campaign, it was important to have a clear and concise message. ""Don't
be a dickhead"" summed up the message in four words easily interpreted by our target
audience.
Sex/sexuality/nudity
Section 2.3 of the AANA Code of Ethics requires advertising or marketing communications to
treat sex, sexuality and nudity with “sensitivity to the relevant audience”.
It is considered that the suggestion of sexual activity was sensitive to the relevant audience of
young adults. The clips do not portray visual sexual images, however there is an inference
that a couple may have participated in sexual activity.
Language was again taken into consideration when wording this advertisement, hence the
use of the term ""ginga‟s getting fresh with other ginga‟s"" rather than a blatant statement of
sexual activity having taken place.
Discrimination or Vilification
Section 2.1 of the AANA Code of Ethics 2.1, requires that advertising or marketing
communications do not discriminate or vilify a person or section of the community on
account of a number of listed attributes, being ethnicity, nationality, sex, age, sexual
preference, religion, disability or political belief.
The clips do not vilify or discriminate on the basis of one of the listed attributes.
The clips are consistent with current Victorian road rules. They are aimed at young Victorian
drivers with the intention of preparing them to get their license. In addition, these clips will
make them more aware of road safety issues and dangerous situations young vulnerable
drivers may find themselves in, particularly when using a mobile phone whilst driving. This
communication reinforces the consequences of using your mobile phone whilst driving.
THE DETERMINATION
The Advertising Standards Board ('the Board') considered whether the advertisement
complied with the AANA Code of Ethics ('the Code').
The Board noted the complainants' concerns that the advertisement discriminates against
people with red hair, that the advertisement is condoning of bullying, use of the word 'ginga'
as offensive, use of the term 'don't be a dickhead' is offensive, discrimination against people
who known as Emos, and that the 'pole axed' advertisement makes a mockery of serious
accidents.
The Board noted considerable complaint concern that the suggestion of red headed people
being born or procreating was undesirable and that the advertisement’s message on these
issues was discriminatory and vilifying of red headed people.
The Board considered whether this element of the advertisement complied with section 2.1 of
the Code. Section 2.1 requires that advertisements shall not ‘portray people or depict material
in a way which discriminates against or vilifies a person or section of the community on
account of race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, age, sexual preference, religion, disability or
political belief’. The Board noted that the Code does not refer to hair colour or physical
attributes of a person and considered that having red hair is not a disability. The Board
considered that, although the Code does not specifically refer to hair colour, the
advertisement does refer to a section of the community and that the suggestion about that
sector of the community is negative. The Board considered however that the situations
depicted were so incongruous with the road safety message of the advertisement, they would
be considered by most people not to be a serious suggestion that red headed people are
undesirable. The Board considered that the advertisement did not discriminate against or
vilify red headed people.
The Board also noted the advertisement which referred to a person described as an ‘Emo’.
The Board recognised that the term ‘Emo’ is used to refer to people who choose to present
themselves in a particular way. The Board noted that, although an identifiable sector of
society, this is not an issue covered by section 2.1 of the Code. For the same reasons as
identified for red headed people, the Board considered that the advertisement’s reference to
‘Emos’ did not discriminate against or vilify this group of people and did not breach section
2.1 of the Code.
The Board noted the advertisement depicting Mr Harris with a pole through his middle going
about his life. The Board considered that this depiction was exaggerated and clearly
unrealistic. The Board considered that the message of the importance of safe driving was not
minimised by the story and that the advertisement did not trivialise the serious consequences
of motor accidents.
The Board noted complainants' concerns about the use of the phrase 'don't be a dickhead'. The
Board considered that the term dickhead is a phrase that is part of Australian colloquial
language and that in this advertisement it is use in a manner consistent with Australian usage
and is not used in a way that is aggressive or demeaning. The Board considered that use of
the term may be considered strong in mainstream media but noted that this advertisement is
not designed or intended for mainstream media broadcast - rather it is for distribution through
the internet and viral messaging. The Board considered that in this context the advertisements
would be unlikely to be seen by children and that the likely audience would consider that the
language is not strong or offensive. The Board also noted the important public health
message of the advertisement and considered that some stronger language has been used in
advertisements with such messages in order to obtain a high level of attention to the
advertisement. The Board determined that the phrase 'don't be a dickhead' is appropriate in
the context of these advertisements and is unlikely to be considered strong or obscene by
most of the audience likely to see the advertisements. On this basis the Board determined that
the advertisements did not breach section 2.5 of the Code.
The Board noted complainants’ concerns that the depiction of red headed people in the
advertisement condones bullying of a sector of society. The Board considered that the
incongruous presentation of red headed people and the message of not using your mobile
phone while driving was unlikely to be taken by the community as a serious message that
people with red hair, or who identify as ‘Emos’, are people who should be bullied. The Board
determined that the advertisement did not depict material contrary to prevailing community
standards on health and safety, particularly around bullying and did not breach section 2.6 of
the Code.
Finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on other grounds, the Board
dismissed the compaints.